In what was described as a "bitter dispute between neighbours", the High Court has awarded £258,500 in damages for the death and loss of profitable breeding opportunity in relation to a number of falcons.
The decision in Nicholas & Ors v Thomas & Anor [2025] follows a long-standing dispute between neighbouring occupiers and businesses in Cornwall, and included claims of harassment, nuisance and negligence, alongside allegations of malice. It is not an isolated example of litigation between these parties. The Claimants alleged that the Defendants' actions harmed their aviary, leading to the death of three falcons and impacting the birds’ breeding, causing significant past and ongoing financial loss.
The Claimants breed falcons for export to the Middle East. Despite being warned that the breed in question is highly sensitive to noise and disturbance during breeding time, the Defendants built a barn next to the aviary during breeding season, leading to the death of 3 falcons, egg loss and breeding failures.
The damages claim was for £1,209,000 plus ongoing losses of £344,250 per annum. In addition to damages, the Claimants also sought injunctive relief against the Defendants.
The matter was factually detailed and included many individual allegations, all of which were heard by HHJ Russen KC, who was sitting as a judge of the High Court. These were each dealt with in the Judge's painstaking judgment which, as a result, ran to well over 550 paragraphs. A great many of the factual allegations were not proved, but a number were, with the result that the Claimants obtained what was overall a favourable decision.
In broad summary, the Judge accepted the claim for damages in nuisance and negligence, but reduced this from the amounts claimed to award the (still substantial) sum of just over £258,500 plus interest. He dismissed the other claims including the Defendants’ counterclaim in harassment. He also decided:
- The claim for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was not made out as, although the facts that the harassment claim was based on were largely proven, they did not amount to a sufficient course of conduct as required by that statute. They would also, even if they had been made out, not have made much difference to the overall damages award;
- Not to award the injunctive relief sought. This was on the basis that this was not "just and convenient" to do so, at least at this stage. This was partly due to the fact that some of the allegations that supported the claims for this relief had not been made out, and otherwise to allow the parties an opportunity to digest the terms of the detailed decision and to work out a way between themselves to comply with the findings; and
- The claim for losses due to interference with breeding was not adequately proven.
Some key points from the judgment include:
- Whether an interference with the amenity of land is actionable in nuisance depends upon the character of the locality in which the interference occurs. In this case, the locality was found to be suitable for a sensitive breeding operation such as this;
- Despite the Claimants' claim that the Defendants' acts involved malice, the Court was not prepared to make such a finding. However, it was not necessary to establish for liability in nuisance; and
- The Defendants were found liable for negligence as the First Defendant assumed a duty of care to the Claimants "not to cause or permit the falcons to suffer excessive noise or visual threats, in particular during the Breeding Season." The imposition of a duty of care was justified on the basis that there was sufficient "proximity" between the parties (based upon exchanges between the parties in which the potential for harm was made clear), and the fact that harm could have been avoided by taking reasonable steps which were not of themselves particularly onerous.
Neighbour disputes are often vicious battles, this one was certainly fought tooth and claw.
